Westminster paedo ring

it seems somewhat suspicious that met have chosen the moment that everyone's attention is being diverted by post-budget tory implosion to announce this:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/21/last-living-suspect-harvey-proctor-vip-paedophile-ring-inquiry-will-face-no-charges

Exaro has folded.

they didn't publish much eh? was p much Westminster paedo focused and there hasn't been a lot of developments in that of late

Yes, it started out as an investigative new site with a broader remit but seems to have been just focused on this for at least a year.

I've seen some speculation that Exaro's folding could be related to the Henriques inquiry into the police's handling of Westminster paedo allegations, which may well be critical of Exaro + the police's relationship with them. I think they had financial problems as well, though?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716348/Janner-s-family-warn-child-sex-inquiry-flawed-s-revealed-star-witness-probe-lied-abuse-care-home-boss.html

Doubts about Tony's reliability are especially significant because, although 33 people have now claimed Janner abused them, for many years he was the only accuser. They suggest that the decision not to charge Janner was not an 'Establishment cover-up', as some have claimed, but a determination on ordinary legal grounds.

On January 29, 1991, Tony went to a local police station to spend the whole day being interviewed about Janner.
This was when he made his claims about Barbara Fitt.

After the interview, the police passed the allegations about Mrs Fitt – who was still running Station Road – to the social services department, along with a copy of Tony's statement. In the summer of 1991 a panel of senior managers noted her exemplary record and decided to take no further action, determining that the claims were bogus, a complete fabrication.

Mrs Fitt told the panel she thought Tony may have been seeking 'revenge' because she had been responsible for having him moved in 1974, after the incident with the six-year-old.

this seems concerning, though it would be helpful to know how the panel came to the conclusion that the allegations against Fitt were bogus, and obviously it could be the case that his account of abuse by Fitt was fabricated but his account of abuse by Janner was true.

Fitt also mentioned here ("Mr A" = the accuser referred to as "Tony" in the Mail article)

https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/decision-not-to-arrest-greville-janner-in-1991-then-attorney-general-and-dpp-need-to-answer-questions/

Mr A claimed that weekly trips had been arranged for him to the MP’s London home and to the Holiday Inn by Barbara Fitt, then Officer-in-Charge of Station Road children’s home, Wigston, Leicester, though conceded that this would have been impossible with the first visits, as Fitt had only taken over the home four months before he left it.

TBH I assumed Exaro was funded largely by someone who cared a lot about this and basically nothing else, to the point of monomania.

seeing reports that Goddard has quit as head of the csa inquiry?

the Times is alleging that Goddard quit after "she was warned by a senior official over her frequent use of racially derogatory language", including claiming that Britain has so many paedophiles "because it has so many asian men"

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/786678658182291456

also, the Henriques inquiry into Operation Midland has apparently been completed, but the police have not said how much of it will be published, if any?

jings

Sir Edward Heath would have been questioned over sex abuse claims if he was alive when they came to light, police have said.

Wiltshire Police launched Operation Conifer in 2015 when the former PM was accused of historical child sex abuse.

The Conservative politician would have been interviewed under caution over seven claims, including the alleged rape of an 11-year-old, they said.

No inference of guilt should be drawn from this, police stressed.

The allegations include one of rape of a male under 16, three of indecent assault on a male under 16, four of indecent assault on a male under 14, and two of indecent assault on a male over 16.

The earliest, dating from 1961 when Sir Edward was Lord Privy Seal, alleged he had raped and indecently assaulted an 11-year-old boy in London "during a paid sexual encounter in private in a dwelling."

Another two of the seven claims relate to "paid sexual encounters."

The Sir Edward Heath Foundation called the report "profoundly unsatisfactory".

There was that credible testament from the lady who said she saw 11 children from Haute de la Garenne go out with Heath on his yacht, but only 10 returned.

testimony even. just having a grim lol at the idea of the testaments of the twelve pederasts!

what makes the testimony about him dumping children's bodies from his yacht "credible"?

tbh the report is highly unlikely to say "if allegations like these were brought to light today, we'd totally blow them off". idk how much point there is in releasing a report that just indicated the police would do the basics of their job in 2017.

the usual formulation is "credible witness" i think: which means the testimony may be implausible but nothing (besides this specific implausibility) seems to stand against our taking the witness seriously*

*and of course credible witnesses often just make mistakes

xps
only one she alleged. And given the children's home he was frequenting, and its sordid history - it seems credible enough to me.

well tbf the focus of operation conifer wasn't 'what would the police do about these allegations today' it was 'is there any substance to these kid-fucking allegations about ted heath and others' xp to sv

and to that end

As part of the £1.5m investigation, three people unconnected to Sir Edward were arrested for offences related to child abuse, one of whom is still being investigated.

That's the point of the operation but if the conclusion as to whether there is any substance to it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ then i'm not sure how much value there is in publicly saying they would have questioned him - which would be the starting point of any basic investigation but will inevitably be interpreted as an indicator of guilt however many qualifiers they put in.

Strikes me as a weird statement to release.

the fact that the police also leaked to newspapers about how they're "110% sure" that there is substance to the allegations may lead one to think a lot of this is about justifying the time and resources that have been spent on this

given that it was already known operation conifer's remit would include ted heath it surely would have been stranger if they hadn't addressed their findings, inconclusive as they are, when the report was published

it'd be the first thing the media would ask about, might as well address it head-on

This business seems to have run its course:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/14/westminster-vip-abuse-accuser-fled-to-sweden-when-story-collapsed

Jesus.

I don't wanna say "I told you so", but...